Guwahati: Journalists
Patricia Mukhim and Anuradha Bhasin moved the Supreme Court on Monday to
challenge the constitutional validity of the sedition law. Ms Mukhim is a
Meghalaya-based columnist and the editor of the Shillong Times. Ms Bhasin is
the editor of the Kashmir Times.
Earlier
today, Leichombam Erendro, a Manipur-based activist arrested in May on sedition
charges - for writing “cow dung and cow urine don't work” on Facebook - was
released from jail after a Supreme Court notice that said his “detention (is a)
violation of right to life and personal liberty”.
Journalist
Kishorechandra Wangkhem, who was arrested at the same time as Mr Erendro and on
the same charges, remains in jail.
In
their petition, Ms Mukhim and Ms Bhasin say the “use of sedition to intimidate,
silence and punish journalists has continued unrestrained...”
The
objective of maintaining “public order” can be achieved by less restrictive
means, they have argued, adding, as many others have done before them, that the
sedition charge casts a “chilling effect on the exercise of the right to free
speech and expression”.
The
petition further states that words like 'hatred', 'disaffection' and
'disloyalty' that characterise use of the sedition charge are “incapable of
precise construction, and are hit by the doctrine of vagueness and overbreadth,
thereby falling foul of Article 14 of the Constitution”.
Article
14 guarantees all persons equality before the law.
The
petition also refers to national crime records data to underline what the
Supreme Court said about the sedition law last week - that it has an abysmally
low conviction rate.
NCRB
data, the journalists said in their petition, shows a steep increase in
sedition cases from 2016 to 2019 - roughly 160 per cent. The conviction rate in
2019, however, was less than 3.5 per cent.
Last
week the Supreme Court, in a significant observation, called the British-era
sedition law “colonial” and asked the government if it was still needed 75
years after Independence.
The
law is a serious threat to the functioning of institutions and holds “enormous
power” for misuse with no accountability for the Executive, the court said.
The
court today also agreed to hear a fresh challenge to the controversial law -
one mounted by a former Army officer. Major-General SG Vombatkere (retd) had
also challenged the constitutional validity of the law on grounds it causes a “chilling
effect” on freedom of speech and expression.
____________